This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We rationalized in Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company[23] the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment as follows: No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void. The underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligation of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio: | |||||
|
2011-02-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[21] We discussed the rule on immutability of judgment and said: No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void. The underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio, | |||||